larger or less thickness of fibre being obtained, according as the cylinder rotated slowly or more quickly. The fibre was constantly being removed from the cylinder as part of its surface passed out of the chamber, so that there was constantly an accumulation of fibre on one part of the cylinder, coupled with the removal of the sheet of fibre from another part of the cylinder. The sheet of fibre thus obtained was then passed through between pressing-rollers, there being adhesive matter applied above and below. The plaintiff filed his bill to obtain an injunction to restrain the defendants, and an injunction was granted exparte. Application was made to dissolve the injunction on the grounds, that there was no infringement, that the plaintiff had kept back an important fact, no mention having been made in the bill of the defendant having a second patent, and that the first patent was bad in law. His Honour held, that the long standing of the patent justified him in assuming that it was valid. That the second patent having been taken for making artificial leather, vellum, and parchment, the plaintiff was not to be expected to know that that patent was intended to make sheathing or felt, and therefore the plaintiff could not be required to mention such a matter in his bill, seeing that he came to the Court to ask that the defendants should be restrained from making sheathing for ships. His Honour assuming the patent good, considered there had been an infringement; the same manufacture had been produced, the means of getting a continuous sheet of fibre, and the mode of applying the adhesive matters, had been varied by defendants from those practised under the patent assigned to the plaintiff. His Honour continued the injunction so far as it restrained the defendants making ships' sheathing under the second patent, but dissolved it so far as it applied to making artificial skins. His Honour reserved the costs, giving the plaintiff leave to bring any action he might be advised, and directed an inspection of the modes of working by the defendants and plaintiff. Reported Where reported in other works. This patent was taken for improvements in the apparatus used for igniting the powder in blasting rocks, &c., which was called, "The Miner's Safety Fuze." The plaintiffs filed a bill to restrain the defendant from using the invention, and an injunction was granted exparte. On the coming in of the answer, the defendant applied to the Court to have the injunction dissolved, on the grounds, that the plaintiffs did not invent the particular manufacture, but purchased the invention from an Irishman, whose name was unknown to the defendant; that there had been no long enjoyment by the plaintiffs, and that the bill and specification left it in doubt whether the patent was for the fuze or for the machinery for making the fuze. The Vice-Chancellor.-The Court sets the fact of enjoyment against the legal objection either of the badness of the specification or the fact of the patentee not being the inventor. The principles on which the Court acted in these questions was fully laid down in Hill v. Thompson. In this case there has been exclusive enjoyment for a length of time under the patent; that would be, primá facie, such a circumstance as would bind the Court to recognise the question of injunction, either in granting it or dissolving it. I find the patent was sealed in September, 1831, an injunction was granted by the Lord Chancellor in September, 1837, and no attempt is made to dissolve it until Feb., 1838; and then the attempt, such as it was, has been allowed to continue a sort of meagre existence from month to month, while affidavits are put on the file. His Honour retained the injunction, but put the plaintiffs on terms to bring an action to try the validity of the patent. From this order the defendant appealed. The Lord Chancellor.-In matters of this kind an injunction is granted or refused by the Court, as the case may be, until the right has been established at law. If the patentee has been long in 454 iv NAMES OF CASES. Names of Cases. Reported Where reported in other works. possession of his patent, the Court will not disturb the title thereto, but give credit to it till the patentee has had an opportunity of establishing his right at law. I cannot acquiesce in the statement at the bar, that the Court gives up all protection to the plaintiff where an action has been directed to be brought by him to prove his right, although it might have been reasonable, when the defendant was restrained from infringing the patent, to compel the plaintiff to proceed as quickly as possible to try his right at law, yet the Court ought not to place the plaintiff at risk and inconve nience if the defendant had conducted himself in such manner as to have caused the pressure complained of. The plaintiff had enjoyed his patent six years before the injunction was granted; the defendant acquiesces in the injunction granted for a further period of sixteen months, and if the defendant had not been guilty of delay, the plaintiff might have had reasonable time." His Lordship retained the injunction, and refused, under the circumstances, to direct a trial to be had in Devonshire at the next assizes. Bleaden, Galloway, et al. v. Bodmer's Patent, in re The patentee applied, by petition, to extend the period for which the letters patent were granted in 1824. The petition was presented in May, 1838, and a caveat had been entered. Their Lordships appointed August 17, 1838, for hearing the petition, on which day a sufficient number of their Lordships did not meet to form a Court, and November the 28th was next appointed: and the Attorney-General (Sir J. Campbell) objected, on the part of the Crown, that the letters patent had expired. Their Lordships were of opinion, that the words "prosecuted with effect before the expiration of the term originally granted in such letters patent," required something more to be done than the presentation of a petition. The application was refused. Boulnois v. Mackenzie In this case the defendant filed notice of objections in the language of the pleas, and an application was made to a Judge in chambers for further and peculiar modes of weaving when yarns of india-rubber were used. The defendants were said to have infringed one wherein it was claimed to make elastic webs by combining covered elastic threads and non-elastic threads in the same plane, the effect being, that the non-elastic threads restrained the extent of elasticity of the elastic threads, and lighter elastic fabrics could be made than when using all elastic yarns in the warp. Evidence was given, on the part of the defendants, of several instances of previous making and using like descriptions of manufactures by other parties. His Lordship, in summing up, said," Now it will be a question for you gentlemen to say, whether, upon the evidence which you have heard, you are satisfied that the invention was or was not in use and operation at the time the letters patent were granted? It is obvious that there are certain limits to that question; the bringing it within that precise description which I have just given, must depend upon the particular facts that are brought before a jury. A man may make experiments in his own closet for the purpose of improving any art or manufacture in public use: if he makes these experiments and never communicates them to the world, and lays them by as forgotten things, another person who has made the same experiments, or has gone a little further, or is satisfied with the experiments, may take out a patent and protect himself in the privilege of the sole making of the article for fourteen years; and it will be no answer to him to say that other persons before him made the same experiments, and therefore that he was not the first discoverer of it; because there may be many discoverers starting at the same time, rivals that may be running on the same road at the same time, and the first which comes to the Crown and takes out a patent, it not being generally known to the public, is the man who has a right to clothe himself with the authority of the patent and enjoy its benefits. That would be an extreme case on the one side, but if the evidence that is brought in any case, when properly considered, classes itself under the description of experiments only, and unsuccessful experiments, that would be no answer to the validity of the patent. On the other hand, the use of an article may be so Reported Where reported in other works. |